Raman Trehan & Another vs State Of Uttarakhand & Others

Sharad Kumar Sharma, J

The petitioners have filed the present writ petition with the following reliefs:

"(i) A writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondent no. 3 to conclude and decide mutation application pending before him as Mutation Application No. 1815 dated 14.06.2013 filed by petitioner no. 1 expeditiously within a period of one month and the respondent no. 3 further may be directed to enter the name of petitioners in Nagar Nigam record accordingly.

(ii) Any other suitable writ, order or direction which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case.

(iii) Award the cost of petition to the petitioner."

Apparently, treating the relief to be innocuous, the Coordinate Bench of this Court on 23.04.2006 has disposed of the writ petition, the writ petition was disposed of directing the Tehsildar to consider and pass an appropriate order on the pending Mutation Application No. 1815 dated 14.06.2013 within a certain specific time frame.

Later, the respondent's counsel made a mention to the Court regarding the concealment of material fact in the proceedings, which has been held in the present case itself. It happened so that when this writ petition came up earlier before the Coordinate Bench of this Court on 23.04.2016 finding the relief to be innocuous the Court has disposed of the writ petition directing the respondent no. 3 to decide the Mutation Application No. 1815 dated 14.06.2013 at an early date. But when the respondents gathered the knowledge of the order dated 23.04.2016, they filed a recall application on 22.02.2017 being Recall Application No. 146 of 2017. Considering the recall application there was an order passed by the Coordinate Bench of this Court on 21.06.2018, whereby, the petitioners were granted time to file objection to the recall application, since they have not filed objection to the recall application a cost of Rs.5,000/- was imposed upon them.

The matter was taken up thereafter on several occasions ultimately the recall/review application came for final consideration and the Coordinate Bench of this Court vide its order dated 10.07.2018 after considering the arguments and pleading as extended in the recall application to the effect that in relation to the property in dispute there already exists some other various civil litigations, ie. O.S. No. 455/2000 'Chaman Lal vs. Irshad', O.S. No. 456/2000 'Chaman Lal vs. Nahida & Others', O.S. No. 457/2000 'Chaman Lal & Another vs. Navil Ahmad', O.S. No. 458/2000 'Chaman Lal & Another vs. Dilshad', O.S. No. 459/2000 'Chaman Lal & Another vs. Praveen Julka & Others', which are pending in relation to the same property, between the same parties, in relation to the same relief. Yet the petitioners have filed the present writ petition without impleading the private respondents, who were likely to be affected by any order to be passed in the petition.

It was also pleaded in the recall application that there was an order passed against the petitioner by Division Bench of this Court passed in Writ Petition No. 855 of 2013, which was passed in the presence of the petitioner directing parties to maintain status quo, on 16.09.2013 and 25.09.2013.

It was the case of respondents in the recall application that the property was purchased by Mr. Chaman Lal in 1946 along with one Mr. Ayodha Nath Trihan, both were sons of Late Mr. Diwan Shah. The private respondents were allotted the accommodation by the Rent Control and Eviction Officer under Section 16 of Act No. 13 of 1972. Mr. Chaman Lal had challenged the allotment order by filing a Rent Control Revision No. 87 of 1992, before the District Judge, Dehradun. Later the principal owner who was resident of Ludhiyana sold the property to the applicant (private respondents) after the compromise which was entered between the Chaman Lal and his brother and other co-sharers on 28.08.1998 which was filed in Suit No. 308 of 1997 before the Court of 1st Additional Civil Judge. He executed an agreement for sale on 28.08.1998 which was registered before the Sub-Registrar, Dehradun. Apart from the agreement for sale Mr. Chaman Lal also executed registered last will and testament on 31.08.1998.

Mr. Chaman Lal breath his last on 14.06.2007. The petitioner claims his right from sale deed executed by Mr. Raman Trihan on 05.04.2013, after the compromise entered on 28.08.1998, which will not confer him any right. Besides this, the respondent who was applicant of the recall application, had also filed a Miscellaneous Case No. 1655 of 2016. Mr. Sanjeev Agarwal vs. Raman Trihan at Patiala Court invoking under Section 263 to be read with Section 264 of the Succession Act and had prayed for the following relief, which is pending consideration:

"For the reasons disclosed in the accompanying affidavit which forms part of present application it is respectfully prayed that judgment dated 13.01.2016 passed by this Hon'ble Court in Civil Appeal No. 3(1)/17.9.2014, Raman Trihan vs. General Public be recalled/set aside and letter of probate granted in favour of Shri Raman Trihan vide judgment dated 13.1.2016 be revoked and petition for grant of probate filed by Shri Raman Trihan be dismissed with exemplary cost. Any other appropriate order of direction in addition which this Hon'ble Court deem fit and proper be issued."

When Chaman Lal died at Ludhiyana, the appellant Raman Trehan and his legal representatives based on the Will dated 31.08.1998 filed an application for seeking a testament in favour of the applicant in relation to the Will, and the same was decided in favour of applicant by the Court vide its judgment dated 31.01.2017. This order dated 31.01.2017 which has been sought to be recalled by filing an application by the applicant to the recall application by filing of a recall application before Patiala Court on 21.02.2016, which is pending consideration.

All these facts pertaining to the proceedings both on criminal side as well as on the civil side, which has been held earlier had been concealed by the petitioners, and they have filed the writ petition for the relief as referred above. Despite of the recall order dated 10.07.2018 the petitioners were able to succeed in misleading the Court in getting an order passed on 16.05.2019 for a direction to decide the mutation case, despite of the fact that the earlier civil proceedings are pending before the Court below. More particularly, when the order dated 23.02.2016 passed by the Coordinate Bench of this Court was recalled, it was the duty of the counsel that while addressing the writ petition, he ought to have informed the court that the relief as sought for already stood recalled by the order dated 10.07.2018 and the said fact was not placed before the Court till a mention was made by the counsel for the respondent in the chamber that the direction has been obtained by misleading the court. Thus, this Court directed the case to be posted on 17.05.2019 for rehearing of the matter.

In that view of the matter, a cost of Rs.1 lakh is imposed upon the counsel for the petitioners to be deposited in the Advocates' Welfare Fund for misleading the court and getting an order of the same nature, which already stood recalled by the Coordinate Bench of this Court.

Writ petition thus stands dismissed with the cost aforesaid.